The main difference between rich and poor in ancient Rome, as well as in our society, is money. In the early days of Rome, the poorer people could not own land (couldn't afford to buy it) so therefore they were left out of the political decisions, as land was one of the criteria for wealth. The thinking at the time was that if a man had land and the wealth that the land produced, he had the right to direct the government, as he had a bigger stake in the economy. This attitude caused political inequality between rich and poor.
they are called PATRITIONS and the poor people were called PLEBIANS.
No they did not. The rich lead a life of opulence and the poor struggle to survive.
The rich became richer and the poor become poorer. The state distributed a free grain dole the the poor.
it was easier for rich indians to live under british rule
rich and poor
rome is rich
It is rich and poor . It is rich and poor .
One major way that rich and poor were affected differently in the Civil War was the draft. If a more wealthy person had 300 dollars, he could buy his way out of the draft or pay someone to replace him.
Rich tudors had silk and cotton robes, and poor tudors had, well, rags.
In Rome they want to get the rich and poor separated so they had the military for justice.
Yes, There were penty of rich people in ancient rome.
beacuse it did.:)
in hut that's were poor Egyptians live but rich Egyptians live in a Kingdom.
The same way they do now. The poor cursed the rich and the rich cursed the poor.
poor
Yes, the poor people would work for or be slaves for the rich, the poor people were the plebeians and the rich were called the patricians; the equestrians was another of the classes.
It would have been very busy because the city was home to thousands of people, if one was poor it would have been a struggle to live well, some people could live luxuriously if they were rich.